"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[JoeMoma]

Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens. I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this. Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.

That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.

Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.

Well Duh!

And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.

 

[Flopper]

Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens. I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this. Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.

That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.

Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.

Well Duh!

And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.

How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.

Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.

 

[JoeMoma]

Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens. I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this. Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.

That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.

Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.

Well Duh!

And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.

How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.

Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.

Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.

For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and they will not come, they will not stay.

 

[Flopper]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.

 

[Flopper]

Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens. I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this. Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.

That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.

Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.

Well Duh!

And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.

How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.

Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.

Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.

For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.

What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.

 

[Syriusly]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.

The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.

You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.

That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

 

[Syriusly]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Well that is just waaaay to reasonable.

No one will ever agree to reasonable solutions.

 

[Syriusly]

I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum. What a great feature to use and I did. I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate. They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.

In other words- you just found out you don't have to read the posts of anyone who disagrees with you.

How very brave.

 

[JoeMoma]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.

So you are saying that automatic citizen for a baby born to illegal immergrants gives zero incentive for people to cross the border illegally? Also, are you saying that there are no issues with deporting illegal immigrants that are parents of citizen children ( hince the term anchor babies)?

Post hoc fallacy my ass!

 

[Syriusly]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

Feel free to name names.

I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.

Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher).

I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.

Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages. There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.

But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them). Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed.

My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.

Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it.

Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.

And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.

So it matters not to you that illegal aliens specifically Mexicans have taken jobs from American and reduced their wages? Just as long as they work hard that's all that counts??

Clearly you either a) didn't read my post or b) have a serious reading comprehension problem or c) are just stupid.

Because your response has nothing to do with my post- so here- let me post it again:

Feel free to name names.

I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.

Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher).

I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.

Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages. There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.

But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them). Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed.

My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.

Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it.

Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.

And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

FLOPPER SAID:

“What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration?”

None.

Just as there's no legal or Constitutional evidence justifying interpreting the Citizenship Clause as denying citizenship to those born in the United States solely because of the condition of the parents.

 

[Flopper]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.

The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.

You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.

That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

 

[Unkotare]

I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum. What a great feature to use and I did. I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate. They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.

Oldgloryhole is all puckered up.

 

[JoeMoma]

Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens. I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this. Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.

That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.

Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.

Well Duh!

And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.

How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.

Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.

Citizen children is a major issue/obstacle when enforcing immergration laws with illegal immergrants parents, hince the term ANCHOR baby.

As for as there being no credible evidence that changing the law would help, all we have to rely on is logic. Since our citizenships have not changed since the 14th ammendment, of course there is no empirical evidence that if would help, because it has not been tried.

As far as your "Third" statement, if nothing is changed, history will continue to repeat itself.

 

[Syriusly]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.

The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property. It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals. Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.

The 14th Amendment very clearly states that anyone who is born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen.

Doesn't say anything about illegal aliens. It could have- but it doesn't. The only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States today in the United States are diplomats and their families.

Only a complete moron can't understand that.

While aliens are subject to our laws, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their citizenship. For instance, it is why illegals that break our laws are shipped back to their country.

Mark

But if those aliens were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- who could the United States ship them anywhere? They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country once they are deported there.

Illegals who break our laws are subject to criminal prosecution and prison- and are typically deported after they finish their criminal sentences here.

Tell me how though this differs from legal aliens? Legal aliens are treated exactly the same way when it comes to crimes and prosecution.

 

[Syriusly]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

By that perverted 'logic', everyone who is arguing against 'anchor babies' are small minded fascists, or racists. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about the Constitution- they just want to deny children citizenship.

See how that works?

No- I don't think you are fascists or racists- but that is how stupid arguments like yours can be switched around.

 

[Syriusly]

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.

The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.

You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.

That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

Have you noticed the disconnect here?

These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.

But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.

And that is because it applies exactly the same.

IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.

And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Oldglory1]

Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.

The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.

You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.

That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

Have you noticed the disconnect here?

These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.

But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.

And that is because it applies exactly the same.

IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.

And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.

It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.